The Anomalies: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| (10 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
This is a | This page is a list of election-related anomalies, which is grouped by elections (i.e., 2020, 2022, 2024, and 2025). | ||
== List of Assessed Anomalies == | Sources for this information was obtained from publicly available government investigations, reports and statements to minimize, but not eliminate, biases that would obviously be induced from news articles. That said, government information was also biased, sometimes more so than news agencies. Fortunately, the ACV's assessment does not rely on the conclusions of those documents, which tend to focus on legal compliance with the law. | ||
ACV is seeking to identify governance issues and utilizes the statements from within these government to identify governance weaknesses, even it the behavior wasn't criminal. Two examples will be provided to illustrate how this was performed. | |||
<u>Example #1</u> | |||
The [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation] of Arizona Senate allegations, Allegation #1 - [[Signature Verification|Maricopa County Signature Verification (2020)]] determined that no procedure violations had occurred with respect to training. The inspector observed the training materials and relied on Election Department leaders interviews to conclude that 33 Maricopa County (MC) employees that would be performing Level I Signature Verifications received training. In the same report, the following governance issues were identified: | |||
* There was no evidence to demonstrate the student competency, meaning the student was evaluated to determine they could identify a "bad signature" from a mismatch between the voter registration form and the early ballot signature. | |||
* Elsewhere in the report, MC leaders state the Level I Signature Verifiers are expected to complete one signature verification every 7.2 seconds. A properly constructed student competency evaluation would have needed to test the students at a rate of one ballot every 7.2 seconds for at least 30 minutes (the batch size) to adequately ensure competency. | |||
* MC leadership hired 40 temporary workers to perform Level 1 signature verifications in October 2020. These temporary workers began peforming Level I Signature Verifications with <u>no</u> training. | |||
* Only 587 "bad signatures" were identified, which seems to be an incredibly small number of rejections for poor signatures given that 1,910,317 early ballots were reviewed by Level I Signature Verifiers for the specific purpose of identifying a potentially fraudulent ballot from a signature mismatch. | |||
All of these bulleted items are examples of poor governance, but did not reach the threshold for prosecution as a malicious or criminal behavior. | |||
<u>Example #2</u> | |||
The [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation] of Arizona Senate allegations, Allegation #2 - [[Dropbox Collection (2020)|Maricopa County Dropbox Collection (2020]]) was <u>not</u> investigating voter fraud through the USPS. However, the Arizona Attorney General's inspector interviewed a United States Postal Service (USPS) Inspector. The USPS Inspector shared some interesting information with regard to governance. | |||
* 56,226 early ballots were retained by the USPS because they were undeliverable. In other words, a fictious address was filled in on the voter registration form, so the USPS could not deliver the early ballots. | |||
* 56,226 undeliverable ballots were not investigated as being potential sources of fraud. Yet 56,226 fictious addresses is too large of a number to be disregarded as random citizen errors. | |||
* The USPS asserts that the undeliverable early ballots were immediately invalidated based on a digital file, which listed all of the undelivered addresses delivered to the MC Elections Department and Runbeck Elections Services. However, the USPS did not describe the internal delays at the USPS to scan each undelivered early ballot to obtain the fictious address. Nor did the USPS explain how a single digital file could have been compiled until the election was over. Therefore, the USPS inspector's assertion lacked credibility when he claimed fictious addresses were immediately rendered invalid. | |||
* The AZ AG's inspector did not question the practice of USPS sending fictious addresses to Runbeck Election Services. Technically, the list of fictious addresses belonged to MC. How was MC controlling this data transfer? Later, in 2025, the MC Board of Supervisors and MC Recorder's Office, litigated disagreements between data ownership. Yet, somehow, it was acceptable for the USPS to share data to a separate third-party. | |||
* By the way, the written agreement between Maricopa County and the USPS was sought by Jamie, which was denied by the County. Access to those records was litigated by Jamie through a Special Complaint to the Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County. The Court concurred with Maricopa County, the records cannot be provided because they don't exist, which may explain why USPS is able to distribute sensitive election data to third parties without MC oversight. | |||
Again, all of these bulleted items are examples of poor governance. However, none of these items was so egregious as to reach the threshold for prosecution as a malicious or criminal behavior. | |||
== 2020 - List of Election-Related Assessed Anomalies == | |||
=== [[Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 Election Investigation]] === | === [[Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 Election Investigation]] === | ||
| Line 57: | Line 84: | ||
[https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation] of Arizona Senate allegations from Mark Finchen - 35,000 votes embedded into Pima County. | [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation] of Arizona Senate allegations from Mark Finchen - 35,000 votes embedded into Pima County. | ||
=== [[ | === [[Arizona Secretary of State 2020 Report on Parisan Reviews]] === | ||
[https://apps.azsos.gov/election/2020/2020_ballot_review_report_ver20210819-03_full.pdf Office of the Arizona Secretary of State Report on the Partisan Review of the 2020 General Election in Maricopa County] responded to "outlandish, unsubstantiated theories of fraud, perpetuating disinformation that continues to simultaneously undermine the results of a free and fair election and erode public confidence in the democratic process." | |||
== 2022 - List of Assessed Election-Related Anomalies == | |||
=== [[Maricopa County Board of Supervisors 2022 Investigation]] of Ballot Printer Issues === | |||
[https://www.maricopa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/82599/Maricopa-Election-Report-and-Attachments Maricopa County 2022 General Election Ballot-on-Demand Printer Investigation] of numerous ballot printer anomalies. Note: This investigation focused on the technical aspects of ballot printing errors. | |||
== 2024 - List of Assessed Election-Related Anomalies == | |||
=== [[Arizona Congressman Abe Hamadeh requests the US DOJ Investigation]] === | |||
[https://hamadeh.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=410 Congressman Abe Hamadeh (AZ-08) announced he sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi] requesting an investigation into credible claims that an elections service provider breached protocols during Arizona’s 2024 General Election. | |||
== 2025 - List of Assess Election-Related Anomalies == | |||
=== [[Maricopa County Elections Department 2025 Statement]] on Missing Ballots === | |||
[https://elections.maricopa.gov/news-and-information/elections-news/november-statement-election-1172025.html Statement from Maricopa County Elections Department] regarding the discovery of missing ballots three days after the election. | |||
Latest revision as of 09:35, 5 September 2026
This page is a list of election-related anomalies, which is grouped by elections (i.e., 2020, 2022, 2024, and 2025).
Sources for this information was obtained from publicly available government investigations, reports and statements to minimize, but not eliminate, biases that would obviously be induced from news articles. That said, government information was also biased, sometimes more so than news agencies. Fortunately, the ACV's assessment does not rely on the conclusions of those documents, which tend to focus on legal compliance with the law.
ACV is seeking to identify governance issues and utilizes the statements from within these government to identify governance weaknesses, even it the behavior wasn't criminal. Two examples will be provided to illustrate how this was performed.
Example #1
The Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation of Arizona Senate allegations, Allegation #1 - Maricopa County Signature Verification (2020) determined that no procedure violations had occurred with respect to training. The inspector observed the training materials and relied on Election Department leaders interviews to conclude that 33 Maricopa County (MC) employees that would be performing Level I Signature Verifications received training. In the same report, the following governance issues were identified:
- There was no evidence to demonstrate the student competency, meaning the student was evaluated to determine they could identify a "bad signature" from a mismatch between the voter registration form and the early ballot signature.
- Elsewhere in the report, MC leaders state the Level I Signature Verifiers are expected to complete one signature verification every 7.2 seconds. A properly constructed student competency evaluation would have needed to test the students at a rate of one ballot every 7.2 seconds for at least 30 minutes (the batch size) to adequately ensure competency.
- MC leadership hired 40 temporary workers to perform Level 1 signature verifications in October 2020. These temporary workers began peforming Level I Signature Verifications with no training.
- Only 587 "bad signatures" were identified, which seems to be an incredibly small number of rejections for poor signatures given that 1,910,317 early ballots were reviewed by Level I Signature Verifiers for the specific purpose of identifying a potentially fraudulent ballot from a signature mismatch.
All of these bulleted items are examples of poor governance, but did not reach the threshold for prosecution as a malicious or criminal behavior.
Example #2
The Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation of Arizona Senate allegations, Allegation #2 - Maricopa County Dropbox Collection (2020) was not investigating voter fraud through the USPS. However, the Arizona Attorney General's inspector interviewed a United States Postal Service (USPS) Inspector. The USPS Inspector shared some interesting information with regard to governance.
- 56,226 early ballots were retained by the USPS because they were undeliverable. In other words, a fictious address was filled in on the voter registration form, so the USPS could not deliver the early ballots.
- 56,226 undeliverable ballots were not investigated as being potential sources of fraud. Yet 56,226 fictious addresses is too large of a number to be disregarded as random citizen errors.
- The USPS asserts that the undeliverable early ballots were immediately invalidated based on a digital file, which listed all of the undelivered addresses delivered to the MC Elections Department and Runbeck Elections Services. However, the USPS did not describe the internal delays at the USPS to scan each undelivered early ballot to obtain the fictious address. Nor did the USPS explain how a single digital file could have been compiled until the election was over. Therefore, the USPS inspector's assertion lacked credibility when he claimed fictious addresses were immediately rendered invalid.
- The AZ AG's inspector did not question the practice of USPS sending fictious addresses to Runbeck Election Services. Technically, the list of fictious addresses belonged to MC. How was MC controlling this data transfer? Later, in 2025, the MC Board of Supervisors and MC Recorder's Office, litigated disagreements between data ownership. Yet, somehow, it was acceptable for the USPS to share data to a separate third-party.
- By the way, the written agreement between Maricopa County and the USPS was sought by Jamie, which was denied by the County. Access to those records was litigated by Jamie through a Special Complaint to the Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County. The Court concurred with Maricopa County, the records cannot be provided because they don't exist, which may explain why USPS is able to distribute sensitive election data to third parties without MC oversight.
Again, all of these bulleted items are examples of poor governance. However, none of these items was so egregious as to reach the threshold for prosecution as a malicious or criminal behavior.
2020 - List of Election-Related Assessed Anomalies
Governance issues identified from Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation of Arizona Senate allegations.
Allegation #1 Maricopa County Signature Verification (2020)
Governance issues identified from Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation of Arizona Senate allegations of Maricopa County - Signature Verification Process issues.
Allegation #2 Maricopa Dropbox Collection (2020)
Governance issues identified from Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation of Arizona Senate allegations of Maricopa County Election Department - Drop Box Collections issues.
Allegation #3 Maricopa Election Management Server (2020)
Governance issues identified from Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation of Arizona Senate allegations of Maricopa County Election Department - Election Management Server (EMS) issues.
Allegation #3-1 MC EMS 2020 - Election Management System Database Purged
Governance gaps were identified from Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation of Arizona Senate allegations #3 Maricopa County Election Department - Election Management Server (EMS) issues, which consisted of ten separate allegations. MC EMS 2020 - Election Management System Database Purged is an assessment of one of the ten sub-allegations associated with the EMS.
Allegation #3-2 MC EMS 2020 - Election Files Deleted
Governance gaps were identified from Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation of Arizona Senate allegations #3 Maricopa County Election Department - Election Management Server (EMS) issues, which consisted of ten separate allegations. MC EMS 2020 - Election Files Deleted is an assessment of one of the ten sub-allegations associated with the EMS.
Allegation #3-3 MC EMS 2020 - Corrupt Ballot Images
Governance gaps were identified from Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation of Arizona Senate allegations #3 Maricopa County Election Department - Election Management Server (EMS) issues, which consisted of ten separate allegations. MC EMS 2020 - Corrupt Ballot Images is an assessment of one of the ten sub-allegations associated with the EMS.
Allegation #3-4 MC EMS 2020 - Missing Ballot Images
Governance gaps were identified from Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation of Arizona Senate allegations #3 Maricopa County Election Department - Election Management Server (EMS) issues, which consisted of ten separate allegations. MC EMS 2020 - Missing Ballot Images is an assessment of one of the ten sub-allegations associated with the EMS.
Allegation #3-5 MC EMS 2020 - Failure to Follow Basic Cyber Security Practices
Governance gaps were identified from Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation of Arizona Senate allegations #3 Maricopa County Election Department - Election Management Server (EMS) issues, which consisted of ten separate allegations. MC EMS 2020 - Failure to Follow Basic Cyber Security Practices is an assessment of one of the ten sub-allegations associated with the EMS.
Allegation #3-6 MC EMS 2020 - Subpoenaed Equipment Not Yet Provided
Governance gaps were identified from Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation of Arizona Senate allegations #3 Maricopa County Election Department - Election Management Server (EMS) issues, which consisted of ten separate allegations. MC EMS 2020 - Subpoenaed Equipment Not Yet Provided is an assessment of one of the ten sub-allegations associated with the EMS.
Allegation #3-7 MC EMS 2020 - Anonymous Logins
Governance gaps were identified from Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation of Arizona Senate allegations #3 Maricopa County Election Department - Election Management Server (EMS) issues, which consisted of ten separate allegations. MC EMS 2020 - Corrupt Ballot Images is an assessment of one of the ten sub-allegations associated with the EMS.
Allegation #3-8 MC EMS 2020 - Dual Boot System Discovered
Governance gaps were identified from Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation of Arizona Senate allegations #3 Maricopa County Election Department - Election Management Server (EMS) issues, which consisted of ten separate allegations. MC EMS 2020 - Anonymous Logins is an assessment of one of the ten sub-allegations associated with the EMS.
Allegation #3-9 MC EMS 2020 - Operating System Logs Not Preserved
Governance gaps were identified from Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation of Arizona Senate allegations #3 Maricopa County Election Department - Election Management Server (EMS) issues, which consisted of ten separate allegations. MC EMS 2020 - Operating System Logs Not Preserved is an assessment of one of the ten sub-allegations associated with the EMS.
Allegation #3-10 MC EMS 2020 - Internet Connections to the EMS
Governance gaps were identified from Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation of Arizona Senate allegations #3 Maricopa County Election Department - Election Management Server (EMS) issues, which consisted of ten separate allegations. MC EMS 2020 - Internet Connections to the EMS is an assessment of one of the ten sub-allegations associated with the EMS.
Governance issues identified from Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation of Arizona Senate allegations of Maricopa County Board of Supervisors - Data not provided for election audit issues.
Allegation #5 - Pima County voter spike prior to 2020 General Election
Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation of Arizona Senate allegation of a voter spike in Pima County prior to the 2020 General Election.
Allegation #6 - Unknown Published Election Fraud Flyer (2020)
Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation of Arizona Senate allegations of an Unknown Published Flyer - Numerous Allegations of Election Fraud
Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation of Arizona Senate allegations from Mark Finchen - 35,000 votes embedded into Pima County.
Office of the Arizona Secretary of State Report on the Partisan Review of the 2020 General Election in Maricopa County responded to "outlandish, unsubstantiated theories of fraud, perpetuating disinformation that continues to simultaneously undermine the results of a free and fair election and erode public confidence in the democratic process."
2022 - List of Assessed Election-Related Anomalies
Maricopa County Board of Supervisors 2022 Investigation of Ballot Printer Issues
Maricopa County 2022 General Election Ballot-on-Demand Printer Investigation of numerous ballot printer anomalies. Note: This investigation focused on the technical aspects of ballot printing errors.
2024 - List of Assessed Election-Related Anomalies
Congressman Abe Hamadeh (AZ-08) announced he sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi requesting an investigation into credible claims that an elections service provider breached protocols during Arizona’s 2024 General Election.
2025 - List of Assess Election-Related Anomalies
Maricopa County Elections Department 2025 Statement on Missing Ballots
Statement from Maricopa County Elections Department regarding the discovery of missing ballots three days after the election.
